| | |
| | |
Washington Monument Grounds
|
Key |
|
ACHP |
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – John Fowler, Martha Catlin |
ANC2A-05 |
Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner – Dorothy Miller |
CFA |
Commission of Fine Arts – Chairman Harry Robinson, Charles Atherton |
C100 |
Committee of 100 on the Federal City -- Don Hawkins, Anne Sellin |
DCHPO |
D.C. Historic Preservation Office – David Maloney |
EA |
Environmental Assessment report |
EIS |
Environmental Impact Statement (fuller environmental report with greater public input than EA) |
NCPC |
National Capital Planning Commission – Chairman John Cogbill, Patty Gallagher |
NCSOM |
National Coalition to Save Our Mall -- Judy Scott Feldman, George Oberlander |
NPS |
National Park Service (National Capital Region) – John Parsons, Sally Blumenthal, Steve Lorenzetti |
1898 – 1984 |
Congressional and National Park Service (NPS) issue reports on the historically unstable clay soils beneath the Washington Monument, the dropping water table, and settlement of the Monument. The 1933 Congressional Report concludes that the McMillan Plan (1901-1902) concept of terraces for the Washington Monument grounds could endanger the Monument and so should not be built. Between the 1960s and 1984, the water table had dropped 15 feet, due to construction nearby, causing the Monument to settle. |
1973 |
NPS’s plan for Improvements to Washington Monument includes an underground visitor center connected by tunnel into the Monument, designed by Hartman-Cox architects. Plans never pursued, due to lack of funding. |
1981 |
NPS’s Development Concept Plan and Alternatives includes tree removal and replanting, sidewalk and crosswalk realignment, elimination of parking lot, and enhancement of monument plaza. |
October 1993 |
NPS’s Amendments to the 1981 Washington Monument Development Concept Plan (DCP) include a new underground visitor center at the Monument Lodge. NPS issues finding that these improvements “at a conceptual stage” (no actual designs or plans) will have “no adverse effect” on the National Register qualities of the Washington Monument and its grounds. No EA or EIS prepared for this new underground element. |
May 1995 |
NPS issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 1981 Development Concept Plan, as amended in 1989 and 1993. As a result, no Environmental Impact Statement is required or undertaken. |
Summer 1997 |
International Water Specialist Lisa Jorgenson testifies before the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) that digging deep excavations for the WWII Memorial at 17th Street, and pumping of groundwater, could potentially destabilize the Washington Monument. |
Summer 1998 |
Once again, International Water Specialist Lisa Jorgenson testifies that the WWII Memorial excavations and pumping of groundwater could endanger the Monument’s stability. |
2001 |
|
Summer |
National Coalition to Save Our Mall (NCSOM), concerned about potential threat to the Monument by WWII Memorial construction, formally requests from NPS any and all recent Environmental Assessments, geotechnical studies, and Cultural Landscape Reports for the Washington Monument. NPS states that no such studies have been made. NCSOM contracts structural engineer Charles Gavin who reports that WWII Memorial excavations could undermine the Monument’s stability. |
Post 9/11 |
Park Service holds private, invitation-only design competition for “Security Improvements” to the Washington Monument. Design guidelines call for replacement of the existing Jersey barriers, a new underground visitors center, and a tunnel into the base of the Washington Monument (an underground center and tunnel were first drawn up in 1973, see above). No EA or Cultural Landscape Report or geotechnical studies have been completed that would allow NPS or the public to evaluate the project’s environmental feasibility. NPS signs “Work Orders” for Design/Build and other design and environmental tasks, amending an old 1998 $5 million contract to “Stabilize and Preserve Washington Monument” to include this new $29+ million project. |
Dec. |
Commission of Fine Arts reviews NPS plans as “Informational Item”. No action taken. |
2002 |
|
Jan. 10 |
NCPC reviews plan as “Informational Item”. No public testimony permitted at information presentation/No action taken. |
Jan. 10 |
NCSOM issues MEDIA ADVISORY: “Mall Threatened Again by Public-Be-Damned Tactics of National Park Service”. |
Jan. 10 |
NCPC issues Staff Comments which state that the Section 106 must be begun and must be completed before preliminary design approval can be granted. |
Jan. 11 |
NPS issues a finding of “no adverse effect” for the new Washington Monument “Security Improvements” project in a letter to DC Historic Preservation Office Gregory McCarthy, based on the 1995 FONSI for the earlier Washington Monument Concept Plan (see above). The new project is different, however, from the 1993 project which was not a Security plan and did not include walled walkways or a tunnel. |
Jan. 15 |
NCSOM letter to Fran Mainella, Director, National Park Service states the following: NPS incorrectly issued a finding of “no adverse effect” on Washington Monument grounds. NPS must do an EA on this new project first. (Attachments included: Charles Gavin, P.E., Engineering Report [Sept. ] and letter from Professional Engineer and Architectural Historian Dr. Elwin Robison to NCPC [Jan. 2002] on potential threat to the integrity and stability of the Monument) |
Jan. 28 |
NCSOM letter to Gregory McCarthy, DC Historic Preservation Officer, asking that Section 106 Review be postponed from Feb. 7, until EA is completed. |
Jan. 29 |
NCSOM letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), asking this federal agency to enter Section 106 process. ACHP brings NPS into Section 106 public consultation process. |
Feb. 2 |
DCHPO postpones Section 106 Review until Feb. 28 |
Feb. 2 |
Fran Mainella, NPS, reply to NCSOM’s Jan. 15 letter: “Both the existing EA and Section 106 documentation must be updated to reflect the modification to the DCP. These updates, including preparation of a cultural landscape report are underway.” |
Feb. 4 |
NCSOM reply to Mainella: “We welcome your assurances that proper studies will be completed before any approvals are sought or granted. However, …the NPS already has made a finding of ‘no adverse effect’...an EA is needed ...we respectfully ask that you rescind the finding.” |
Feb. 4 |
NCSOM letter to Patricia Gallagher, Exec. Dir., NCPC: “In light of the DCHOP decision to postpone the Section 106 review …we request that the NCPC postpone its consideration of the plans until after Feb. 28.” |
Feb. 6 |
John Parsons, NPS, rescinds finding of “no adverse effect” as premature and states that public will be involved in Section 106 process, including NCSOM. |
Feb. 7 |
NCPC approves “design concept”, a conceptual phase that precedes “preliminary design” approval. |
Feb. 20 |
NPS holds first preliminary Section 106 consultation meeting with representatives of NCSOM, Committee of 100, ANC 2A (neighborhood commission), American Society of Landscape Architects, Guild of Professional Tour Guides (absent: Washington National Monument Society). |
Feb. 21 |
CFA approves “design concept”. |
Feb. 28 |
Historic Preservation Review Board for the District of Columbia approves “design concept”. |
March 15 |
NCSOM letter to Mainella: We have heard no word from the NPS since Feb. 20. We request a revised draft Programmatic Agreement for the Section 106 process; a schedule of future meetings; copies of any and all Scope of Services (contracts) already awarded by the NPS for the Washington Monument and grounds |
March 26 |
NPS holds second preliminary Section 106 consultation meeting to negotiate terms of the Programmatic Agreement. Promises release to public of Cultural Landscape Report and geotechnical and other studies “by early April”. Does not provide promised schedule of future meetings or peer review policy. |
March 21 |
Commission of Fine Arts Hearing: Don Hawkins of C100 notifies CFA and NPS that the C100 has an alternative to tunnel screening at the Washington Monument. CFA tells NPS to consider it. |
April 2 |
NPS releases “Final Draft, Programmatic Agreement” for the Section 106 consultation process. NPS, NCPC sign April 4; Advisory Council on Historic Preservation signs late April. Public members have not yet signed, as of May 19 |
April 4 |
Hawkins of C100 shows and discusses with NPS staff (John Parsons and Sally Blumenthal) outline sketch of C100 alternative to tunnel |
April 4 |
NCPC hearing: Parsons states “…we have agreed with Mr. Hawkins that his concept of not using the tunnel which we’re not here to disclose today…we’re going to look at that and see if there’s some other way we can get the visitors with dignity to the Monument…” NCPC Vice Chair Elwood states, “Mr. Parsons, I believe you’re very sincere in saying you will study Mr. Hawkins’ proposal…” |
April 23 |
NPS releases Environmental Assessment for Washington Monument project; public comments due by May 23. NCSOM requests Cultural Landscape Report, geotechnical studies, and other reports (promised in early April) with which to evaluate the EA’s conclusions that the proposed project will not adversely affect the Monument |
May 14 |
NPS holds third preliminary Section 106 consultation meeting, still negotiating terms of the Programmatic Agreement. Hawkins of C100 attempts to explain design alternatives to the proposed tunnel. NPS staff (Blumenthal and Lorenzetti) state that the C100 proposal will not work. Hawkins requests serious discussion of its merits with security personnel. NCSOM again asks for reports and documentation, so as to be able to evaluate the EA’s conclusions. C100 proposed alternative never examined as part of the EA. |
May 16 |
NPS, at the last minute and at the request of the public, postpones its request that the Commission of Fine Arts grant approval of the “preliminary design”. |
May 21 |
NPS extends public comment period on EA from May 23 to June 21, at the request of the public. NCSOM is still seeking the documentation promised “by early April”. |
June 11 |
NCSOM writes NPS (John Parsons) that we will not be signing the Programmatic Agreement “at this time” because we have been unable to obtain from NPS crucial documents and, in addition, are concerned that Design/Build contracts already signed by NPS may impede the public consultation process. |
June 19 |
NPS holds fourth Section 106 consultation meeting with “concurring parties” who have signed the Programmatic Agreement (PA), including the Committee of 100, ANC2A-05, National Trust. NCSOM has not signed (see June 11) and is not invited to participate. Previous meetings (Feb., Mar., May) focused on negotiating terms of the PA. |
June 21 |
Sharply critical comments of the NPS’s EA are submitted by NCSOM, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, the National Parks Conservation Association, and other groups and individuals. |
July 22 |
NPS issues a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Washington Monument project, despite the fact that required documents – the Engineering Report, the Cultural Landscape Report, the Historic Structures Report – have not yet been completed and public comments on the EA have not been satisfactorily answered. This FONSI is, in essence, little different from the one issued and then retracted in January (see above). |
July |
NCPC schedules and then removes the Washington Monument project from its August 1 agenda. NCPC then schedules a “Special Meeting” for August 15 to review the Washington Monument project. |
July 30 |
NPS holds fifth Section 106 consultation with “Concurring Parties”. |
August 8 |
NPS invites Don Hawkins of C100 to meet with NPS’s security experts. Experts decline, however, to discuss any substantive concerns, including the safety of the tunnel. |
August 10 |
NCPC cancels August 15 Special Meeting. |
August 15 |
100% Design Development completed, according to NPS’s Task Orders for Design Development (see above, post 9/11) As of this date, no preliminary design approvals have been sought by NPS or granted by CFA or NCPC. |
Sept. 10 |
NPS submits latest design revisions for review by CFA on September 19. NPS sends out latest revisions to “Concurring Parties” and schedules sixth Section 106 consultation for September 18, the day before the CFA review. |
Sept. 16 |
NCSOM requests CFA not to take formal action until Historic Preservation Process (Section 106) and all needed documents are complete. |
Sept. 19 |
|
Dec. 16 |
NCPC finds Monument tunnels & walls present "no significant impact." |
FUTURE |
Completion of 106 process and DCHPO determination of impacts on historic Washington Monument grounds. Preliminary and final design review by CFA and NCPC Possible review by ACHP |
Updated September 16, 2002 |
|
Copyright © 2008 National Coalition to Save Our Mall Inc. All Rights Reserved |